Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> >
> > I personally find that a bit baroque. :-) Also, it's tied
> > specifically to mod_log_config. However, you've given me
> > an idea, so here's a counterproposal:
> >
> > LogStatus envname[=val] statusre ...
>
> (I think the envname should be last to align with SetEnvIf.)
I didn't do it that way so that multiple status codes could be
specified, a la AddType and friends.
> I'm still in "blue sky" mode, so feel free to ignore me (as usual ;-), but
> if you're going to do that, why not go all the way:
>
> LogVariable %s "40[0-9]" exclude
> LogVariable %a "127\.0\.0\.1" exclude
> LogVariable %U "\.jpg" exclude
> LogVariable %{Referer}i "yahoo.com" exclude
> Customlog ... env=!exclude
>
> Where the first argument is a log-format %-directive, the second is a
> regex, and the third is an environment variable. I would think that this
> should be relatively easy to do given the way mod_log_config works in 2.0.
Fine and cool -- except that this is mod_log_config specific, and it
would be nice to have something that was module-neutral. Or are the
logging format effectors dissociated from mod_log_config and moved into
the core now? I haven't kept up there..
> And yes, I'm still a big proponent of not using conditional logging at
> all; log everything and postprocess to get rid of what you don't want.
If you could, would you have your mail server reject spam on detection?
Or continue to accept *everything* and filter out even known spam after
the fact? (Actually, I think you *can* teach sendmail to reject spam
using milters..) Regardless, there are those (and I'm among them) who
think that conditional logging is more efficient and the best way of
doing some things. It's in there, so let's not have this philosophical
discussion again.. :-)
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
